Pared-down electric experience: Driving one of the first Model 3s off the line

It's immensely disappointing that Tesla is going in precisely the opposite direction as every other car manufacturer when it comes to dashboard and UI design. For the most part, even cheap Kias have been moving towards larger instrument cluster screens offering more functionality, including much of what's usually been limited to the central infotainment screen. If you look at Audi's TT lineup, you'll see it taken a step further. The TT/S/RS has no central infotainment screen, relying instead of the massive "digital cockpit" instead:

Personally, I think the TT has one of the most impressively minimalist, driver-oriented interiors out of any non-exotic production car on the market today. It works, given the type of car: sports cars are about the driver, first and foremost. Passengers are just along for the ride. I'd love to see other sports cars follow suit, and wouldn't be surprised if that's the case in the coming years. Mercedes has moved to massive screens and digital instrument clusters, as has Porsche with the Panamera. BMW's recent 2 series/M2 LCI facelift implemented digital gauges behind physical bezels to give a more physical appearance. Other manufacturers have been moving in the same direction.

Compared to Tesla's centered monstrosity, it makes an immense amount of sense from a purely ergonomic viewpoint. The instrument cluster is immediately below your focus. Looking down involves your eyes traveling further out of your visual field. Looking down requires less effort, and is proportionally closer to where you're focused to begin with. As any skier will tell you, or anyone who has tracked their car, we tend to move in the direction we're looking. Focus on the tree, or the wrong part of the turn where you don't want to wind up, and there's a good chance you'll find yourself there.

Worse yet, the odometer is displayed as a transparent overlay that *changes "according to relevance." Eek. Throw in glare, all that extra light coming in from the massive windows, and variability, and you've got a very dangerous recipe for disaster. The only thing worse than not being able to read your instruments is barely being able to see them. Or in other words, just enough to allocate additional cognitive load towards reading them. How critical, potentially life-affecting information is displayed should be crystal clear and shouldn't change unless the user chooses to change it.

And because everything is shared in one location--utilizing overlays in a manner that's aesthetically pleasing but does little to create a significant sense of separation of different concerns--your eye will always be drawn to the bigger, brighter entertainment portion of the screen. So you'll look down and to the right, your eye will catch on the music/map display, and then transition to instrument overlays. For years, eye tracking research in web design has reliably demonstrated how our eyes can follow information based on design choices. I'm surprised as hell that Tesla's designers went in this direction.

Musk has stated that the dashboard design is the result of a focus on autonomous driving. When your car is driving itself, you don't really have to worry about your instrument cluster. Fine. But the base Model 3 doesn't do that, now does it? And even if you pay the extra $5k, the car is only going to be driven autonomously part of the time.

I'm a huge proponent of autonomous vehicles for everyday use. I'm ecstatic about the future implications, and how it'll affect how our society views transportation. And yes, it'll lead to radical changes in interior design for fully self-driving vehicles. All of those are good things. But starting those interior design changes early, and making ergonomics when driving manually little more than an afterthought, reeks of putting the cart before the horse. It's foolish, dangerous, and likely to hamper customer comfort and satisfaction. That could bite Tesla financially.

I don't see any other car designers following Tesla's lead on this, for very good reasons.

I'm a little skeptical that Audi is moving to do away with the center display. The TT may be an exception because it is their tiniest, light sports car, but if you look at their other new models that have the full screen MMI behind the dash, they usually have both. Not saying you're wrong, just that the sample set is pretty small to be making these claims.

When I saw the big display in the Model 3, I thought the opposite. Not Tesla bucking the trend, but taking the new trend of "touch screen center tablet on top of dash" and turning it up to 11.

New RS3:

<snip>

New S5:

<snip>

You're right in that Audi isn't doing away with the central screen entirely. The TT line is unique, in that as a sports car its focus on the driver gives them a valid excuse for doing away with it. I absolutely expect other sports cars to follow in that trend, and said as such. Regular sedans and SUVs? They'll likely continue to maintain a vestigial central screen as you noted. Already, some are trying to optimize it for the passenger's benefit. Mercede's S-Class offers a splitview option that allows the passenger to watch a movie while the driver sees the normal display. They're also getting bigger, allowing them to display more information with less visual clutter.

So while the infotainment screen probably won't be disappearing for most models, a fully digital instrument cluster is pretty much the direction we're heading in for the industry as a whole. More interestingly, the most recent E-Class and Panamera designs suggest that we're going to see more of a blending between the two:

That said, Audi's virtual cockpit allows the driver to more or less avoid ever having to use the main infotainment screen when it's present. And that's my main point. Car companies are moving towards that direction, optimizing the driver's interaction with the car's systems by placing it directly under their primary focus. Even if functionality is duplicated for passenger use/drivers who are more used to using the main screen. Car companies clearly have no problem with interface duplication; Mercedes has two separate input interfaces literally stacked on top of one another: a touchpad as well as a controller wheel. Why have both? No clue.

Tesla did the opposite. They eliminated a driver-optimized interface entirely, and settled for forcing the driver to use a center screen that is, by its size and positioning, decidedly not optimized for the driver's benefit. The instrument displays will never take up more than a small fraction of Tesla's display. As a result, the driver's eye will have to isolate what they're looking for and ignore everything else.

It makes sense if you're betting on autonomous driving. But even under the best circumstances, Teslas will still see significant periods of manual driving. In which case, the tradeoff becomes much less defensible.

People are missing the point with the dash screen. The 3 is meant to drive itself, but can't do that at launch. The car has been designed for all occupants to be passengers, with the freedom to sit back and watch the screen, and sort though its controls at leisure.

So... Tesla intentionally is selling a vehicle designed explicitly for autonomous use, but isn't actually autonomous yet (and will be an $5k upcharge when it is).

Why would you think people wouldn't complain about having a car designed for the way they would drive it today?

I wonder if one Model 3 production increases this will result in pricing changes for Model S.

The rumors are that base Model 3 is 50 to 55 kWh and the Long Range is 75 kWh. That means the upgrade is 20 to 25 kWh for $9,000. The difference in base price between Model S 75D and 100D (25 kWh) is $23,000.

People are missing the point with the dash screen. The 3 is meant to drive itself, but can't do that at launch. The car has been designed for all occupants to be passengers, with the freedom to sit back and watch the screen, and sort though its controls at leisure.

Not the base model, and not at launch. It's a semi-autonomous vehicle and will still require manual intervention at times. Especially in inclement weather and in edge cases that require further refinement. Those challenges will be tackled, but not fully and not immediately.

Or, in other words, the Model 3's interior design choices involve tradeoffs for manual driving that will be most intrusive when drivers need the clearest levels of focus. Think twisty roads, heavy rain or snowfall, etc.

I'm a Tesla fan, and the Model 3 is the chance for them to really make EVs viable, mainstream options. But that doesn't mean we should overlook a glaring ergonomic screwup on Tesla's part. They've made a design decision for a future that's still a few years away. In that time, a hell of a lot of Model 3 leases are going to be up before the vehicles ever become fully autonomous in all or even the vast majority of situations. Personally? I'd call that an example of not knowing your customers.

I just hope it doesn't blow up in their face and set EVs in general back.

People are missing the point with the dash screen. The 3 is meant to drive itself, but can't do that at launch. The car has been designed for all occupants to be passengers, with the freedom to sit back and watch the screen, and sort though its controls at leisure.

The offset speedo is really the least valid criticism about the Model 3 interior. Toyota and Mini and others proved that idea works years ago. As the focal length is greater than it is to a convential dash, your eyes spend less time refocusing to the road ahead.

Compare Prius to Model 3

Thank you for posting these pictures next each other. It really put the difference in perspective.

When reading the article, my first reaction was pretty negative - and perhaps disappointed - with the lack of any indicators directly in front of the driver. The photos helped me realize that my initial reaction was more to how different it looks compared to the standard vehicle setup. In general, people fundamentally don't like change and I'm no different.

Now, with that context and a fresh look, I see the Model 3's interior as crisp with clean lines. The amount of window visibility is impressive and the legroom on the passenger side looks cavernous.

I dare say the Prius now looks a bit bloated and cluttered....

It remains to be seen how the car drives, handles road bumps and noise, and many other things, but this helped me realize I don't care about the center console.

The whole car seems to have been designed by and for people who don't really like cars, those who view them as utilitarian A->B appliances rather than something special that you can engage with and actually drive.

I await a proper long range all-electric drivers' car from the Germans.

Ugh, this attitude irks me to no end. You're free to have your own preferences of course, but what the everloving fuck does having a mess of buttons in the cockpit, an instrument cluster/screen behind the wheel, or the presence of a touchscreen have to do with "engagement" or enjoying driving? If it's not those elements, the what exactly is it about the design that impings on ones ability to enjoy driving while in the Model 3?

Tesla let's you map important functions to the steering wheel buttons though. ---8<---

The main problem is controls, not instruments. You should be able to operate everything by feel without looking.

That is covered. Everything you use constantly while driving is mapped to steering wheel controls. For the rest, a large touch display set up with an intuitive interface beats a pile of small confusing buttons every time.

The competition isn't between a great touchscreen and poorly designed buttons, though. It's about which works better.

2007 Prius: 3 layers of touchscreen to dim the viewscreen for night driving. As a driver, you can't do that unless you pull into a rest area. Oh, for a dimmer I can reach out and identify by position and feel, instead of an idiot engineer's concept of running a car from your home desktop.

Musk often makes wild claims and then reality sets in. A half-million Model 3's would be the sales equivalent of beating the Ford F150 by over 100K units, and that truck is the best-selling vehicle in America. Even if his vendors could support that level of production, it's not very practical that he could sell them.

That's pretty wrong. Both in numbers and in segment.

Ford sold 820k F-series pickups in the USA alone last year.

About half of Tesla's sales are in the USA.

500k global sales is likely to be about 250k US sales, or about 30% of the Ford F-series.

It would put Model 3 somewhere around the Chevy Malibu or Ford Fusion, and well behind Camry, Accord or Altima.

People are missing the point with the dash screen. The 3 is meant to drive itself, but can't do that at launch. The car has been designed for all occupants to be passengers, with the freedom to sit back and watch the screen, and sort though its controls at leisure.

Then why did they bother with glass windows?

Why do airplanes bother with glass windows for the passengers? Or trains? Or buses? Or subways? Or taxi cabs? Or cruise liners?

That said, Audi's virtual cockpit allows the driver to more or less avoid ever having to use the main infotainment screen when it's present. And that's my main point. Car companies are moving towards that direction, optimizing the driver's interaction with the car's systems by placing it directly under their primary focus. Even if functionality is duplicated for passenger use/drivers who are more used to using the main screen. Car companies clearly have no problem with interface duplication; Mercedes has two separate input interfaces literally stacked on top of one another: a touchpad as well as a controller wheel. Why have both? No clue.

Tesla did the opposite. They eliminated a driver-optimized interface entirely, and settled for forcing the driver to use a center screen that is, by its size and positioning, decidedly not optimized for the driver's benefit. The instrument displays will never take up more than a small fraction of Tesla's display. As a result, the driver's eye will have to isolate what they're looking for and ignore everything else.

It makes sense if you're betting on autonomous driving. But even under the best circumstances, Teslas will still see significant periods of manual driving. In which case, the tradeoff becomes much less defensible.

Leave aside autonomous driving for now.

What systems is the "engaged" driver supposed to be interacting with?

Lets go through a list, and how it is handled in the Tesla Model 3.

Acceleration? Pedal.

Brake? Pedal.

Direction? Steering wheel.

Speed monitoring? Very visible, near the steering wheel. Unlike most cars, not blocked every time you turn the wheel. Motor Trend liked it.

Turn signals? Stalk.

Gearshift? Stalk. But no need to interact unless you are switching from forward to backward.

Cruise control? Stalk.

Rear camera for backing? Main screen, like virtually all other cars with it. Except it's a better screen.

Music? Voice control worked great in the Model S I tried - and voice systems historically haven't liked my voice.

Indoor temp? Thumbwheel.

Tach? Don't be silly.

Frankly to me, it seems they have pared away all the distracting cruft that other automakers use to cover the dash. And when those assholes use chrome trim, sooner or later I will be blinded by reflected sun glare.

A new Toyota Auris costs around £17.000 to buy and has annual fuel costs of around £1000, which brings us to £10.000 for the 10-year lifetime of the car, for a total of £27.000. So, with £3000 more, you get a car which does 0-60 in 6 seconds, has no shifting gears and gives its max horsepower from 0 RPM.

Traditional automakers have every reason to be afraid of the Model 3.

And, no, the Prius slow whale is not enough.

And electricity is free, and the battery never needs replacing either.

I'm all for Bev's but let's not make bad comparisons. In addition as EV's get popular you will be paying more for your tag renewals to cover for lost tax income for roads, so while electricity is cheap you really are just not paying your fair share for roads taxes.

Electricity is not free but doesn't carry taxes on top of green taxes, cost of extracting crude from deep-sea wells or costs of bribing tin-pot dictators in the Middle East and Africa, or the profits of oil companies or refinery costs. It varies by country of course, but generally, electricity is much cheaper. Especially with renewables. The UK's "day without coal", despite being partly a PR stunt, is promising for the future.

And what does that have to do with you not even accounting for it?

Quote:

Tesla batteries have an 8-year warranty, so I can easily imagine owners keeping them for 10 years. This is not your crappy iPhone battery designed to last till the end of the carrier contract.

That's a warranty against complete failure. One you lose capacity that's it. No warranty covers that. At eight years Tesla expects some loss and won't fix it. Heck, they also won't fix it to 100% if it fails - they'll fix only the bad cells.

Quote:

I never mentioned tag renewal discounts by the government. I don't expect them to last either.

Any other objections?

Complete miss there bud. Many states are considering adding a EV fee to registration to make up for lost revenue. I'm not aware of anyone giving credits for that anymore.

Quote:

My point is that the Tesla Model 3 might be the only electric or hybrid making sense for the average driver from a cost-benefit analysis compared to a gas-burner like the Toyota Auris when all the benefits are taken into account, instead of being sold as a moral obligation for greenies. Which is why traditional automakers have every reason to be afraid.

It's not. The Tesla has a bad reputation for poor reliability and build quality, something that Toyota is great at. And while Toyota hybrids are slow they are reliable and you'll come out way ahead of the Tesla 3.

Tesla wins in the fun dept for sure. But it still isn't a value proposition. I'm willing to bet as well that the bolt, even being a Chevy, will hold up much better.

Quote:

Not that facts matter in Ars comment section just setting the record straight.

there's no instrument cluster directly in front of the driver. All the information you need about the car is found on a single, horizontal screen mounted in the center of the dashboard.

Call me crazy .. but I sure as hell don't want to have to glance down and off to the side to see fundemental things like what speed I am doing.

And even then that screen doesn't even look angled towards the driver. That's got to add to the lack of ergonomics.

Not that I am about to buy one, but I had hopes that it would be something I would lust after.

Edit. Given the down votes its seems that some of you are calling me crazy!

You're not crazy, AusPeter. I like the overall look and design of the Model 3, but I hate center console-only instrumentation. I had the misfortune to rent a Toyota Yaris on a business trip, and looking to my right to see the instrumentation gave me head and neck aches.

For what little it's worth, unless they offered a HUD option so I could at least see my speed and an 'alert' icon, I'd pass on the Model 3.

I assumed that this already was paired with a HUD, but once I saw it wasn't, all I can do is scratch my head. Well, the dash is one of the easiest parts of a car to redesign, at least.

That said, Audi's virtual cockpit allows the driver to more or less avoid ever having to use the main infotainment screen when it's present. And that's my main point. Car companies are moving towards that direction, optimizing the driver's interaction with the car's systems by placing it directly under their primary focus. Even if functionality is duplicated for passenger use/drivers who are more used to using the main screen. Car companies clearly have no problem with interface duplication; Mercedes has two separate input interfaces literally stacked on top of one another: a touchpad as well as a controller wheel. Why have both? No clue.

Tesla did the opposite. They eliminated a driver-optimized interface entirely, and settled for forcing the driver to use a center screen that is, by its size and positioning, decidedly not optimized for the driver's benefit. The instrument displays will never take up more than a small fraction of Tesla's display. As a result, the driver's eye will have to isolate what they're looking for and ignore everything else.

It makes sense if you're betting on autonomous driving. But even under the best circumstances, Teslas will still see significant periods of manual driving. In which case, the tradeoff becomes much less defensible.

Leave aside autonomous driving for now.

What systems is the "engaged" driver supposed to be interacting with?

Lets go through a list, and how it is handled in the Tesla Model 3.

Acceleration? Pedal.

Brake? Pedal.

Direction? Steering wheel.

Speed monitoring? Very visible, near the steering wheel. Unlike most cars, not blocked every time you turn the wheel. Motor Trend liked it.

Turn signals? Stalk.

Gearshift? Stalk. But no need to interact unless you are switching from forward to backward.

Cruise control? Stalk.

Rear camera for backing? Main screen, like virtually all other cars with it. Except it's a better screen.

Music? Voice control worked great in the Model S I tried - and voice systems historically haven't liked my voice.

Indoor temp? Thumbwheel.

Tach? Don't be silly.

Frankly to me, it seems they have pared away all the distracting cruft that other automakers use to cover the dash. And when those assholes use chrome trim, sooner or later I will be blinded by reflected sun glare.

Why does any steering wheel block your view of the speedo? If you are turning it enough to block your view you are looking where you are going and don't need to know your speed.

Just because it's an electric car doesn't mean we need to throw out the traditional stack. The worst part of it in the model 3 is simply the fact that it's a huge floating screen that just doesn't look like it belongs there.

Just because Toyota did it means nothing. They did it to be different. If it was truly better every car from them would do it that way.

And no tach? The only reason why cars have a tach is for fun - almost everyone drive an automatic and have no need for a tach either.

It is utterly pointless to have a tachometer in a vehicle with a fixed gear transmission.

Correct. I wouldn't mind having a way to show motor rpm though, but it just wouldn't be the same. But it isn't necessary for anyone, except for manual cars. Even then an old 4 speed manual Toyota tercel didn't have a tach.

Looks like Motor trend sold their dignity to get their review published first. I have never read a "review" that was less of a review. It's kind of pathetic how "journalists" are ready and eager to sell themselves.

Well there you go, I just canceled my reservation. No standard instrument cluster is a deal breaker for me.

I’ve ridden with a friend who is lucky enough to own the Model S and that iPad console gets very annoying during night time driving. So to have that be the only way to control the car and see information is just aesthetically tacky.

Exactly. I don't mind the speedometer but having a huge screen as your only control interface is a deal breaker. There's a very good reason why professional cameras have a ton of manual controls. And why you don't see planes with giant touch displays and a lack of physical buttons.

A big touchscreen is awesome, but why not add at least a couple of programmable dials?

However, I have some concerns about the ergonomics. A dedicated area for speed and range seems essential, IMO (and I'd also prefer that area be in the traditional location.

I'm not *too* fussed about the lack of physical controls - climate controls get adjusted what, once ever? Some controls though are adjusted more often and physical controls are faster to find. Contrary to what some people will tell you, literally nobody finds controls entirely by touch (this is not an exaggeration, there are hundreds of studies available to show this), but they do get *approximate* locations by glance and then zero-in by touch. This isn't an option with a touch screen - so you have to look at the controls for longer (or, more likely more often - once to get approximate location and then again when your hand gets closer to fine-tune).

So my impression is mixed. Once I can sit in one and take it for a test drive (probably not for 2-3 years at this rate) I'll make up my own mind...but although I love the look and the specs of the car appeal to me, it's not a slam-dunk, so I need to see it for myself before making a decision.

I don't like the screen. I see exactly no reason for it to be set up like that, functionally or aesthetically.

Functionally, it seems very odd for a car to be designed such that you look away from oncoming traffic to check your current speed or fuel (range, in this case). How hard would it have been to bury a small display strip in that lip on the dashboard to display necessary information? Sure, put stuff like the outside temperature, backup camera, wheel power distribution, or whatever on the centerline display...but not speed and range.

Are we looking at the same photos? In the ones in the article the screen is actually higher than the dash more in line with the driver's view of the road. I understand people not liking how the thing looks but I don't understand the ergonomic/safety concerns.

It's below the driver's sight line with the road...which doesn't matter because you have to look away from oncoming traffic to see it anyway. At least with a standard gauge cluster you still have the entire road well in your peripheral vision.

I don't like the screen. I see exactly no reason for it to be set up like that, functionally or aesthetically.

Functionally, it seems very odd for a car to be designed such that you look away from oncoming traffic to check your current speed or fuel (range, in this case). How hard would it have been to bury a small display strip in that lip on the dashboard to display necessary information? Sure, put stuff like the outside temperature, backup camera, wheel power distribution, or whatever on the centerline display...but not speed and range.

Are we looking at the same photos? In the ones in the article the screen is actually higher than the dash more in line with the driver's view of the road. I understand people not liking how the thing looks but I don't understand the ergonomic/safety concerns.

It's below the driver's sight line with the road...which doesn't matter because you have to look away from oncoming traffic to see it anyway. At least with a standard gauge cluster you still have the entire road well in your peripheral vision.

I did some quick measurements and back-of-the-napkin maths: the road is still *well* within your peripheral vision when looking at that screen (don't forget that your vision extends much further horizontally than it does vertically.

I'd want to check this (because it seems intuitively wrong, despite the math being correct), but actually based on my car and my guesses at the location of that screen, if the speed is in the top-left of the screen, then it's actually ergonomically *better* than in behind the steering wheel. Further = less eye refocusing time, sideways and higher = more of the windscreen in the part of your vision which is binocular.

I don't like the screen. I see exactly no reason for it to be set up like that, functionally or aesthetically.

Functionally, it seems very odd for a car to be designed such that you look away from oncoming traffic to check your current speed or fuel (range, in this case). How hard would it have been to bury a small display strip in that lip on the dashboard to display necessary information? Sure, put stuff like the outside temperature, backup camera, wheel power distribution, or whatever on the centerline display...but not speed and range.

Are we looking at the same photos? In the ones in the article the screen is actually higher than the dash more in line with the driver's view of the road. I understand people not liking how the thing looks but I don't understand the ergonomic/safety concerns.

It's below the driver's sight line with the road...which doesn't matter because you have to look away from oncoming traffic to see it anyway. At least with a standard gauge cluster you still have the entire road well in your peripheral vision.

That's nonsense. You don't have to look away anymore than you do for a Speedo behind the steering wheel in a car with standard instrument console:

I suspect most of the car industry is watching Musk's experiment with cautious interest, especially the dealership/sales angle, but most of those executives would probably eat their hats before they expect him to take any serious market share.

I think by now they realize the potential:

Oh brother, not this silliness. The Model S is a midsize, not a full-size. Musk has decreed it to be full-size because he wants to be compared to the full-size market, but that doesn't make it true. Now the 2016 midsize luxury market involved 308,000 non-Tesla vehicles and 76,000 Tesla ones. That's impressive, but not the Tesla takes over the world narrative that you want.

The Model S is garbage compared to cars on that list. It has the interior and features of a Toyota Camry next to them. I swear, no Tesla owner has ever actually driven one of these cars or compared the features. Or ridden in the back seat. That's when you get the wake-up call as to how grossly under-equipped a Tesla is.

I don't like the screen. I see exactly no reason for it to be set up like that, functionally or aesthetically.

Functionally, it seems very odd for a car to be designed such that you look away from oncoming traffic to check your current speed or fuel (range, in this case). How hard would it have been to bury a small display strip in that lip on the dashboard to display necessary information? Sure, put stuff like the outside temperature, backup camera, wheel power distribution, or whatever on the centerline display...but not speed and range.

Are we looking at the same photos? In the ones in the article the screen is actually higher than the dash more in line with the driver's view of the road. I understand people not liking how the thing looks but I don't understand the ergonomic/safety concerns.

It's below the driver's sight line with the road...which doesn't matter because you have to look away from oncoming traffic to see it anyway. At least with a standard gauge cluster you still have the entire road well in your peripheral vision.

That's nonsense. You don't have to look away anymore than you do for a Speedo behind the steering wheel in a car with standard instrument console:

So your vehicle speed is the ONLY thing you need to look at on your cluster? What about indicators for things like high beams or parking brake? What about cruise control (both on/off and set speed)? Fuel gauge (or battery charge)? Trip meters? Navigation alerts? Incoming call alerts? List of people to call from the recent callers list? Text message alerts? Even the radio station you're listening to or song/playlist?

And specifically for Tesla, alerts regarding autonomous driving?

There's a lot of information that's useful besides vehicle speed. The location for the screen is ridiculous and people are giving Tesla a pass for a stupid decision.

I don't like the screen. I see exactly no reason for it to be set up like that, functionally or aesthetically.

Functionally, it seems very odd for a car to be designed such that you look away from oncoming traffic to check your current speed or fuel (range, in this case). How hard would it have been to bury a small display strip in that lip on the dashboard to display necessary information? Sure, put stuff like the outside temperature, backup camera, wheel power distribution, or whatever on the centerline display...but not speed and range.

Are we looking at the same photos? In the ones in the article the screen is actually higher than the dash more in line with the driver's view of the road. I understand people not liking how the thing looks but I don't understand the ergonomic/safety concerns.

It's below the driver's sight line with the road...which doesn't matter because you have to look away from oncoming traffic to see it anyway. At least with a standard gauge cluster you still have the entire road well in your peripheral vision.

That's nonsense. You don't have to look away anymore than you do for a Speedo behind the steering wheel in a car with standard instrument console:

Boy, that is a bland look. You would think they could spend a few bucks making something a little less...Android Honeycomb

From the Motor Trend article someone mentioned. I think this is a bit important. This isn't an "every person" car.

"But of course, Franz’s car isn’t $35,000. A quick summing of its features puts it at about $59,500 before incentives—including $1,500 for the larger 19-inch wheels (18 inches are standard), and a grand for the red multicoat paint. (You can have any no-extra-cost color as long as it’s black. Seriously.) And it’ll be a while before $35,000 versions are built, but reservation holders can place an order for an upgraded Model 3."

I don't like the screen. I see exactly no reason for it to be set up like that, functionally or aesthetically.

Functionally, it seems very odd for a car to be designed such that you look away from oncoming traffic to check your current speed or fuel (range, in this case). How hard would it have been to bury a small display strip in that lip on the dashboard to display necessary information? Sure, put stuff like the outside temperature, backup camera, wheel power distribution, or whatever on the centerline display...but not speed and range.

Are we looking at the same photos? In the ones in the article the screen is actually higher than the dash more in line with the driver's view of the road. I understand people not liking how the thing looks but I don't understand the ergonomic/safety concerns.

It's below the driver's sight line with the road...which doesn't matter because you have to look away from oncoming traffic to see it anyway. At least with a standard gauge cluster you still have the entire road well in your peripheral vision.

That's nonsense. You don't have to look away anymore than you do for a Speedo behind the steering wheel in a car with standard instrument console:

So your vehicle speed is the ONLY thing you need to look at on your cluster? What about indicators for things like high beams or parking brake? What about cruise control (both on/off and set speed)? Fuel gauge (or battery charge)? Trip meters? Navigation alerts? Incoming call alerts? List of people to call from the recent callers list? Text message alerts? Even the radio station you're listening to or song/playlist?

And specifically for Tesla, alerts regarding autonomous driving?

There's a lot of information that's useful besides vehicle speed. The location for the screen is ridiculous and people are giving Tesla a pass for a stupid decision.

All of those fall well into "you're doing it wrong." If you feel the need to check those things and can't flick your eyes over and back in a half a second while driving, just do it at the next light or pull over. Particularly the radio station and texts and recent callers, are you really saying that you need to read that while driving?

People in cars with regular dashes crash from focusing on the dash from time to time, too; it's not like having it inside the steering wheel is a panacea. A HUD is basically the only way to keep your eyes focused on the road and the car at once, and even then people will find a way to zone out.

Serious question for those that currently own an all-electric car. How does spirited driving impact range? For example, the base 3 is what, 210 miles? Let's say I wanted to do some spirited driving, would the range drop to 200, 150, something else? What has your experience been with whatever car you have?

It appears the range is based on perfect conditions at 55 mph. A slower speed gets you more range, a higher speed, less range. For the Model S, the 85kWh battery, at 35 mph the range is 400 miles, at 55 mph it's 300 miles, and at 75 mph it's 230 miles. So I'm assuming spirited driving could very materially impact range, depending on how much regeneration you're getting back from spirited braking and such.